Bill Rammell: I get the point. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that unless we tackle both sides of this we will not get the security and the peaceful solution that people seek. That is why we, in concert with other international partners, are doing everything possible to support the Egyptian efforts to tackle smuggling across the borders. We have also, in our own right, made an offer of naval assistance, and that, too, might be able to make a contribution.

Gillian Merron: Negotiations between the FCO and the Ministry of Defence on new terms and conditions for improved civilian use of the South Atlantic air bridge are expected to be concluded shortly. The MOD has already provided a premium economy service, increased the frequency of the flights to twice a week, and given the Falkland Islands Government the number of aircraft seats they requested.

William Hague: The Foreign Secretary has progressed from saying three weeks ago that he would not go on a lobbying campaign with the US Government about this matter to having no objection about the release of the documents by the US. I am simply asking him to go one step further and to suggest to the US that that is what should be done. The view of the Government's adviser is that this material should be published and the view of the High Court was that nothing in the relevant paragraphs could be
	"described as 'highly sensitive classified...intelligence'"
	and that they should be published. The view of a senior Congressman has been that the secrecy would leave a
	"cloud that would haunt both countries".
	The US is in any case reviewing its assertion of state privilege in the courts in every case, as the Foreign Secretary has said, so would it not now be sensible to ask the US to change its approach to the case, to underline our joint commitment to dealing with allegations of torture and to avoid the charges of cover-up that are now flung about?

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the use of the ministerial veto under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act, in respect of minutes of two Cabinet meetings in March 2003 relating to Iraq.
	I need first to set out some background. The Freedom of Information Act has profoundly changed the relationship between citizens, and their elected representatives and the media on the one hand, and the Government and public authorities on the other. It has, as intended, made the Executive far more open and accountable. The Act provides a regime for freedom of information which is one of the most open and rigorous in the world.
	The Act was the subject of almost three years' intensive debate, by which the original scheme of the Bill was much improved and strengthened. As initially proposed, decisions of the Information Commissioner would in law have been heavily persuasive, but not binding on Ministers. This reflected the regimes in other countries, such as Canada. In the event, however, that scheme was replaced by a much tougher one.
	There was, however, a key balancing measure written into the Act, and accepted by Parliament. This was to provide, in section 53, that in specific circumstances Ministers and certain others could override a decision of the commissioner or tribunal requiring the release of information, if they believed on reasonable grounds that the decision to withhold the information was in accordance with the requirements of the Act. At the time of the passage of the Bill, Ministers in both Houses provided reassurance about the use of this veto. It would not be commonplace. Undertakings were also given that, although section 53 required and requires a certificate by a single Cabinet Minister or Law Officer, any use of the veto would be subject to prior Cabinet consideration.
	The Act came into force on 1 January 2005. From then until September 2008, in approximately 78,000 cases where the requested information was held by Government Departments, it has been released in full. Before the Act, some of it would not have been released for 30 years. Since 2006, the Information Commissioner has dealt with more than 1,500 cases involving Government Departments, and the Information Tribunal has dealt with more than 50 such cases. But no section 53 veto has been used to date.
	In December 2006, the Cabinet Office received a freedom of information request for Cabinet minutes and records relating to the meetings that it held between 7 and 17 March 2003, where the Attorney-General's legal advice concerning military action against Iraq was considered and discussed. There were two such meetings, on 13 and 17 March. Cabinet Office refused the request, citing the Act's exemptions for information relating to policy development and ministerial communications. In keeping with its statutory obligations, the Cabinet Office had considered the public interest in releasing the information, but found twice, on balance, that there was a greater public interest in withholding it.
	The applicant duly exercised his right to ask the Information Commissioner to investigate the handling of his request. In February 2008 the commissioner reasoned, for the first time, that Cabinet minutes—these ones—should be released. The Cabinet Office appealed the commissioner's decision to the Information Tribunal.
	On 27 January 2009 the tribunal published its decision. The tribunal was unanimous in deciding that the informal notes of the Cabinet meetings should be withheld. But, by a majority of two to one, it decided that the public interest balance fell in favour of release of the minutes. It therefore upheld the decision of the Information Commissioner ordering information to be disclosed, subject to some minor redactions.
	Following that decision, and having taken the view of Cabinet, I have today issued a certificate under section 53 of the Act in an appropriate form and consistent with the Act, the effect of which is that these Cabinet minutes will not now be disclosed. The conclusion that I have reached rests on the assessment of the public interest in disclosure and non-disclosure. I have laid a copy of my certificate, and a detailed statement of the reasons for my decision, in the Libraries of both Houses. My decision was made in accordance with the Government's policy criteria, which are annexed to my statement of reasons. Copies of these documents have been sent to the requester and are available in the Vote Office.
	To permit the commissioner's and the tribunal's view of the public interest to prevail would, in my judgement, risk serious damage to Cabinet government—an essential principle of British parliamentary democracy. That eventuality is not in the public interest. Cabinet is the pinnacle of the decision-making machinery of Government. It is the forum in which debates on the issues of greatest significance and complexity are conducted. Whether the nation was to take military action was indisputably of the utmost seriousness. However, I disagree with the reasoning of the majority of the tribunal. In their decision, they refer to the "momentous" nature of the decision taken and to the public interest in understanding the approach to that decision and in the accountability of those who took the decision. They then say:
	"In the view of the majority"—
	of the tribunal—
	"the questions and concerns that remain about the quite exceptional circumstances of the two relevant meetings create a very strong case in favour of the formal records being disclosed."
	But in my judgment, that analysis is not correct. The convention of Cabinet confidentiality and the public interest in its maintenance are especially crucial when the issues at hand are of the greatest importance and sensitivity. Indeed, the minority view of the tribunal—that the minutes should be withheld—was formulated on this basis. It stated:
	"The minority view seeks to reach the decision most likely to support continued confidence that Cabinets can explore difficult issues in full and in private".
	It continued:
	"publication would, in the minority view, be more likely than not to drive substantive collective discussion or airing of disagreement into informal channels and away from the record. This would over time damage the ability of historians and any inquiries, if constituted, to reconstruct and understand the process Cabinet followed in any particular instance. And it would not be conducive to good government."
	Responsibility for Cabinet decisions is with the Government as a whole, not with individual Ministers; that remains the first principle of the ministerial code. The conventions of Cabinet confidentiality and of collective responsibility do not exist as a convenience for Ministers. They are crucial to the accountability of the Executive to Parliament and to the people.
	The concomitant of collective responsibility is that debate is conducted confidentially. Confidentiality serves to promote thorough decision making. Disclosure of the Cabinet minutes in this case jeopardises that space for thought and debate at precisely the point where it has its greatest utility. In short, the damage that disclosure of the minutes in this instance would do far outweighs any corresponding public interest in their disclosure.
	What the minutes principally record is the deliberations of Cabinet in reaching its decisions. The actual decision that was made at the later Cabinet, on 17 March, was made public straight away, when I as Foreign Secretary conveyed it to the House in an oral statement within three hours of the Cabinet coming to that conclusion. In that statement, I recounted the recent history leading up to Cabinet's decision, and I brought to the House's attention the information which had that day been made available to the House, in order better to inform the following day's debate.
	Despite the powers under the royal prerogative, we put the use of force to a debate on a substantive motion the next day. In opening that debate, our then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, spelt out in considerable detail the reasons for the Cabinet's decision. The debate ranged across the history of non-compliance of Saddam's regime, the negotiating history of the two UN resolutions in the run-up to military action, our discussions with allies, and much else besides. I ended that debate by fully setting out the factors that the Government and Parliament had considered and should bear in mind in voting on the substantive motion before them.
	The Government subsequently released the Attorney-General's legal advice. Furthermore, on 25 May 2006 a full disclosure statement was published by the then Attorney-General which set out in considerable detail the considerations taken into account as he reached his opinion on the legality of military action.
	A number of inquiries have been conducted. There was the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly, and there was the Butler review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Both those inquiries published detailed reports on aspects of the decision to take military action, and we have acted on their recommendations. There has been yet more scrutiny of the decision by Parliament itself, including by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which published its report on weapons of mass destruction, and both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee have investigated the matter on a number of occasions.
	In summary, the decision to take military action has been examined with a fine-tooth comb; we have been held to account for it in this House and elsewhere. We have done much to meet the public interest in openness and accountability. But the duty to advance that interest further cannot supplant the public interest in maintaining the integrity of our system of Government. The decision to exercise the veto has been subject to much thought, and it will doubtless—and rightly so—be the object of much scrutiny. I have not taken it lightly, but it is a necessary decision to protect the public interest in effective Cabinet government.
	Shortly after he became Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established a high-level inquiry into the 30-year rule under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Dacre of the  Daily Mail. That report, published last month, proposed a reduction from 30 to 15 years of the time after which Cabinet minutes and other papers would automatically be released. I have already told the House that the Government favour a substantial reduction in the 30-year limit. In that context, the report also recommended that we consider protection under the Act for certain categories of information.
	There is a balance to be struck between openness and maintaining aspects of our system of democratic government. This tension is recognised in the fundamental framework of the Freedom of Information Act—and that Act, and much else that we have done, stand testament to the far greater openness and accountability secured under this Government. I commend my statement to the House.

Jack Straw: As the hon. and learned Gentleman blustered, I assumed that at some stage he would get to the point where he expressed agreement, not disagreement, with the issue of my certificate. Perhaps I should have said in my opening statement that we have been grateful for the bipartisan support we have had from senior and distinguished Conservatives, including Lord Hurd of Westwell, who gave evidence to the tribunal, Lord Heseltine and, quite separately, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
	The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) tries to make play of the fact that I was the architect of the Freedom of Information Act, and said that I was now trying to circumvent it. No, I am not trying to circumvent it; I am trying to apply an essential component of it. The Government would never have agreed to the Act, and would have invited the House to vote against the Bill, had it not been for the inclusion of section 53. I see one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues on the Benches behind him nodding in assent at that.
	The Act was intended to secure a better balance between openness and the protection of some information that is essential to the operation of good government and other matters, and it was intended that that tension should be reflected in the Act itself. This is not a simple matter, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, despite his desire—not all that successful—to have it both ways in his bluster. Section 53 is in place precisely to express that tension and to ensure that in certain circumstances, which are very clearly set out, it is possible for a particular Minister to exercise a veto in appropriate and specified cases.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why the Prime Minister is not giving this statement. It is a matter of the construction and drafting of all sorts of legislation that decisions of this kind are made by Secretaries of State or Law Officers, not by the Prime Minister. He also asked why it was I who made the decision. I made it because it falls under my responsibilities, and I would have been accused of ducking it if I had not. It was also subject to deliberation in Cabinet. He asked me when I finally came to my decision. It was yesterday afternoon, after the final Cabinet discussion of the matter. He asked me what right of appeal there would be. There is no direct right of appeal prescribed in the Act, but it is perfectly possible that some interested party may attempt to secure a judicial review of the decision.
	On the issue of an inquiry into aspects of the military action in Iraq and its consequences, as I said, there have already been at least four inquiries. I am well aware that the Prime Minister is on record as saying that once the troops are home he will consider the case for a further inquiry, but, with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is not and cannot be germane to this decision. Any inquiry established would certainly not be under freedom of information rules.

Jack Straw: Well, certainly not the latter. There have been plenty of occasions to discuss the nature of the decision to go to war. I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's description of the legal basis for the war and I have—and am happy to do so again in future—argued that the Attorney-General, Peter Goldsmith, was entirely correct to advise that there was a lawful basis for the decision to go to war. Anybody who had months of intensive negotiation, as I had, about the line-by-line, word-by-word structure of what became resolution 1441 would know its legislative history and why we were justified in making the decision within international law.
	The Butler inquiry was extensive and, yes, it criticised some aspects of the way in which the Government had operated. I have never been a fan of so-called sofa government, since the hon. Gentleman asks. What is more, the Government led by Tony Blair and now by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted and implemented the inquiry's recommendations. However, that is not an argument for releasing the minutes for when the Cabinet was operating effectively; when it was, notwithstanding the criticisms, the final arbiter of the decision to take military action, and when it had discussed military action in not one or two, but, from recollection, 20 meetings.
	What Cabinet minutes do is record the details of the deliberations, normally without attribution to individual Ministers, but with more attribution than perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes. In any event, my judgment—and I think that this would be the judgment of anybody who had served in a Cabinet—is that the degree of detail, which is properly and essentially given in Cabinet minutes, is such that if those minutes were published, not least in respect of very important issues and discussions, they would undermine, in the manner that I have described, the whole principle and basis of collective responsibility. As I have said, that is not a convenience for Ministers, but is essential for the accountability of Ministers to the House.
	The last point that the hon. Gentleman raised was about why we had not chosen to put in an appeal under what I think is section 56 of the 2000 Act—no, section 59. The answer is this: an appeal to the High Court would arise on a point of law. There is no suggestion whatever in the structure of the Act that one should wait for an appeal to the High Court under section 59 before exercising a veto, effectively, under section 53. Under section 53, the accountable person is essentially substituting his or her judgment for the judgment made by the commissioner or the tribunal.

Jack Straw: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He has the benefit of being correct and also consistent about this over more than 10 years. So far as an opportunity to look at the Act is concerned, recommendation 8.8 of the Dacre review said, as I indicated in my statement, that if the minimum period for the release of documents generally was reduced, as he recommended, from 30 years to 15, but even if it came down to, say 20, there would need to be consideration of changes to the Freedom of Information Act provision in this respect. We are actively considering that. I am happy to do it in conjunction and co-operation with the Opposition.

Jack Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but on the issue of whether it was correct for me to be the person who issued the certificate, I say to him that it is inevitable that, if the section 53 power is to be used in normal circumstances, a Minister may well end up in the position that I am in as the accountable Minister, having been party to a decision some years before. Of course I thought about that, but I was faced with a situation whereby if I had decided to recuse myself, although I do not think that there is an inherent conflict of interest, I would have been accused—no doubt by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield—of dodging my responsibilities, so I was unwilling to do that.
	Let me also say to my hon. Friend—through you, Mr. Speaker—that the decision, though it is mine, has been made after very careful discussion by the Cabinet as a whole.

Douglas Hogg: May I remind the Secretary of State that I was one of those who voted against war in Iraq? Indeed, I drafted a motion with the aim of securing a full inquiry. Unlike the Liberal Democratic party, Lord Smith and I were responsible for drafting the anti-war motion which Mr. Speaker selected.
	That said, however, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wholly right. I do not believe that Cabinet documents that reflect Cabinet discussion can be or should be disclosed. The right hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. Where he is wrong is in withholding an early and full inquiry into the war. We are entitled to that. We need to know what happened in the lead-up to the war, we need to know why it was so badly handled, and we need to know the full extent of the legal advice. All that will come out in an inquiry, but the right hon. Gentleman is right on the narrow point: Cabinet documents should not be disclosed.

Jack Straw: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who took a different view from me in respect of the military action, for what he has said. As the House will understand, this is not the occasion for making decisions about an inquiry into aspects of the military action. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in this House on 18 December last year,
	"I have always said that this"—
	an inquiry—
	"is a matter that we will consider once our troops have come home. We are not in that position at present, so it is not right to open the question now. That is the course of action that the Foreign Secretary, I and others have stated to the House on many occasions."—[ Official Report, 18 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 1239.]

Airport Expansion (Parliamentary Approval)

Susan Kramer: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Planning Act 2008 to require parliamentary approval for proposals for the building of new major airports and additional runways at existing major airports; and for connected purposes.
	The purpose of the Bill is to allow this House, through an amendment to the Planning Act 2008, a vote—the final say—on any new major airport in England or any new runway at a major airport in England. There are three characteristics to this Bill: it is motivated by concern about climate change; it is motivated by concern about the democratic deficit and for the rights of this House, as balanced against the authority of the Executive; and it is genuinely cross-party.
	I just wish to mention the timing. My introducing this ten-minute Bill has partly been triggered by proposals for a third runway at Heathrow and the Government's decision not to allow a full debate in Government time with a vote that will matter so that this House can exercise its genuine opinion.
	However, the Bill is about far more than that. Hon. Members will know that an additional runway is proposed for Stansted airport—that issue is being addressed in the High Court today. The constraints on an additional runway at Gatwick expire in 2019, and Hochtief, one of a number of bidders for Gatwick airport, which is up for sale, has expressed its interest—other bidders probably have, too—in an additional runway at Gatwick. The Mayor of London has proposed a new estuary airport which, from the current discussion, would involve four additional runways, in addition to Heathrow, and the potential for expansion to six runways—those would be operated 24 hours a day. In addition, a number of regional airports up and down the country have proposed an expansion of their capacity—the airports at Manchester, Bristol, Bournemouth and Birmingham all have various plans to add various amounts of capacity.
	When the issue of Heathrow was debated on 28 January, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change told us that it was an issue about "half" a runway. I suggest that he was being disingenuous, because this is a far broader issue. We are facing one of the biggest expansion plans for aviation capacity ever considered in this country, and we are doing so exactly when climate change is supposed to be somewhere near to the top, or at the top, of our agenda.
	May I say a word or two about climate change? This House is overwhelmingly convinced of the importance of climate change as an issue—there may be one or two hold-outs, but in every region, and across every party, this is a major issue of concern. The House has also accepted that we have only an extremely limited time in which to act. Virtually every report that we receive—whether it is on the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, the rate of melting of inland ice in Greenland or the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted—suggests that the past scenarios have woefully understated the problem and that the urgency is far greater than we thought.
	As for the consequences of climate change, we have seen a little of the impact of extreme weather conditions in the UK and the rest of the developed world, but we know that the impact on Africa and the developing world will be far more extreme. The potential for conflict across the globe grows, as climate change leads to issues of disappearance and allocation of resources.
	The House has accepted that aviation is a significant contributor to climate change. At the moment, some 13 per cent. of the UK's contribution to climate change emissions comes from aviation, including some 6 per cent. of the UK's CO2 emissions. We know that that figure will rise to 25 per cent. by 2038 unless we drastically change the direction of policy. Given the role that aviation plays in climate change, are we really saying that we will never again allow Members of Parliament to have a vote on such a significant issue? In effect, that is where Government legislation has left us.
	We talk about the democratic deficit, but the Government say, "Don't worry. We will require that aviation brings CO2 emissions back to 2005 levels by 2050." But the question is how that will be achieved. The technologies do not exist and the science is not in place, never mind the investment. The Government have also said that aviation is a special case. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has said:
	"We must all accept the principle that aviation will not bear as big a burden as other sectors in the economy."—[ Official Report, 28 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 404.]
	Must we really accept that without knowing the impact on other industries, on our regions, and on jobs in our constituencies? Indeed, must we accept that without a vote? On an issue that is crucial to the future of our country and our planet, and when every strategy is untried and uncertain, what are we doing giving up our right, and the right of this House, to decide?
	This is a genuinely cross-party Bill. In fact, it is a Back Benchers' Bill. It has three Labour sponsors, three Conservative sponsors, a Plaid Cymru sponsor and four Liberal Democrat sponsors. If I were able to add more sponsors, the list would continue to reflect the make-up of this House very directly.
	I carefully read the speeches made on 28 January in the debate on Heathrow introduced by the Conservatives. Fairly or unfairly, some Labour Members could not bring themselves to vote for an Opposition motion. This Bill is not an Opposition motion, so that inhibition disappears. Some Labour Members thought that the 28 January motion was not clear enough, even though it was based on the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said:
	"I will go home because there is no motion for Members of Parliament like me who want to halt the expansion of aviation".—[ Official Report, 28 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 388.]
	That does not apply to this Bill. Indeed, I suspect that Members who favour airport expansion but care about the rights of this House can see a way to support this Bill, because it is about the democratic deficit as much as it is about climate change and aviation.
	There are times when we have to delegate our responsibilities, but when we are facing the biggest challenge of our lifetime, when our knowledge is so uncertain, and when the cost of a wrong decision is so high, we cannot say, "Oh, the Climate Change Committee will decide." We cannot say, "The Infrastructure Planning Commission will decide." We cannot even say that the Government should decide, unchallenged and unchallengeable by any vote. Our constituents expect us to shoulder crucial responsibilities, and on that basis, I ask hon. Members to support this Bill.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
	That this House views with great concern the rise in burglary, drug offences and crimes involving knives; is concerned by the Government's complacency about criminal and anti-social behaviour; and is further concerned that the Government has no long-term strategy to tackle the causes of crime.
	Let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling you a story about life in Britain today. It was told to me by the father of one of our soldiers serving in Afghanistan. The soldier was home on leave and out in his local town centre when he became the victim of an unprovoked attack from behind by two youths. He was able to hold them off and the police were called, but he was left badly bruised by what had been an unpremeditated attack. The two young men were arrested, but then, extraordinarily, they were let off with a caution. After 11 years of this Government, we have become a nation that appears so used to a violent assault of that kind that the police deem it fit only for a caution; we have become a nation in which such attacks are sadly routine and not a rare exception. There can be no clearer example of the fact that our society desperately needs change.
	Once upon a time, a few years ago, a now well-known politician used the phrase "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" to great effect. Now, twelve years after that man, Tony Blair, became our Prime Minister—12 years since this Government took office—that phrase is a hollow memory. We have a Government who have simply failed to deliver; they have been soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. We have another snapshot of a broken society, where antisocial behaviour is endemic, violence has become a norm, offenders do not seem to give a damn, carrying weapons is just routine, families can be terrorised by teenage gangs and many of our older people are in fear for their safety.  [Interruption.] I am glad that the Minister for Borders and Immigration agrees with me and that he recognises the problems that we face. I am glad about that, because I think it is important to come and make some key points to this House—not a habit that the Government are used to.
	For the past 10 years, we have had a whole string of initiatives from the Government; there have been more in the past few weeks. All are designed to create a sense of activity and action to tackle the problem, but they have simply not worked.

Chris Grayling: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on these subjects and on what could be done. I am not sure that I agree with all of them, but none the less, we share the aspiration of coming up with the right way of saying no to young people who step out of line without criminalising them.
	We have big challenges ahead if we are to deal with the causes of crime, but we also have to be tough on crime itself. We have to tackle youth antisocial behaviour. Plenty of teenagers stray off the straight and narrow sometimes, but today there are no consequences when they do so. That is what has to change. All too often, when we look at the case of a 15 or 16-year-old who is starting to commit serious offences, we find a story of years of minor misdemeanours that have gone unpunished. That cannot be right. At the moment, things are moving in the wrong direction. In 2007-08, more than 93,000 youngsters aged between 10 and 17 received their first caution or conviction, which is up from 78,000 just five years ago—a big jump in the wrong direction.
	ASBOs have become a badge of honour for some, and they take months to impose. The Government's section 30 orders just move young gangs from the streets that they are on to the next potential hotspot. In the police Bill currently being considered, the Government are even talking about moving 10-year-olds on to the next street. I think that 10-year-olds out on the street causing difficulties should be sent home, not just moved on to the next street. That is where my thinking about grounding orders comes from, because they would give the police a power to send an immediate message to such young offenders that they cannot get away with causing trouble on our streets.

Tobias Ellwood: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, and congratulate her on managing to muster one Labour Back Bencher for the important debate. She mentions gimmicks. What has happened to the respect agenda, which hit Bournemouth—we were told that it would help people in Boscombe—like a whirlwind? With a great fanfare, the Home Secretary or one of her colleagues came to Bournemouth to announce the initiative. What has happened to it? I can tell her, before she gets up to reply, that it was a gimmick. We have heard nothing of it since the announcement.

Keith Vaz: One of the Home Secretary's proudest boasts in the past two years—and that of all Labour Home Secretaries—is the increase in police numbers. Is she as alarmed as I am to read in  The Times today that the chief constable of Gloucestershire suggests a reduction in the number of police officers, not only in Gloucestershire but in other parts of the country, when we have received figures that show that the number of police officers has increased? We have police community support officers for the first time, and the work force as a whole has increased by 50,000. Where do the figures about the necessity for a reduction come from?

Jacqui Smith: Since that change in 2001, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will know from the detailed answers that I have provided to his written question of 4 February, between 2002-03 and 2007-08, the total number of all criminal offences recorded has dropped by just over 1 million.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a second time. There is nothing wrong with putting forward new ideas, but my problem with the proposals of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is that they would tie the police down even more. If they had to visit the homes of those who are subjected to grounding orders, that would take up more time, not less.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the number of people who commit crimes after being sentenced to prison for less than a year is very high, but will he concede that the longer people spend in prison, the less likely they are to reoffend? For those who spend more than four years in prison, the reoffending rate drops to about 35 per cent. Is not the answer, therefore, that these people should spend longer in prison, rather than less time?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is the worst time to do that, and I do not think that it will happen. Given the Government's figures, the introduction of PCSOs and the proposals to reduce bureaucracy, what will police officers do if they do not need to fill in unnecessary forms and will be resourced as they have never been resourced before? In those circumstances, there should be no reduction in the number of police officers.
	My second point is about new technology. I welcome what the Government have done in making a commitment to put in an extra £18 million for new technology, and that is precisely what the Home Affairs Committee called for—I see two members of the Committee in their places. "Policing for the 21st Century" was a unanimous report. We took evidence for over nine months from witnesses including Sir Ronnie Flanagan and Ministers, and we came to the conclusion that new technology would save police officers enormous amounts of time. The investment in new technology should be warmly welcomed, with the caveat suggested by Jan Berry in her report about the need for compatibility between police forces. There is no point in Lincolnshire buying one type of equipment if it is incompatible with the equipment that is being purchased by Leicestershire. I suggest that Ministers, as well as providing the money, should introduce effective guidelines on procurement to ensure that when police forces buy new technology and equipment, it is compatible with other areas. That matter is connected to the database issue and the need to ensure that when the computers of the 42 different police authorities speak to each other, they are able to understand what is required.
	We welcome the desire to reduce the level of bureaucracy in the requests for information between police forces, and from the Home Office, but it is essential that the new technology works and is compatible. I do not suggest that everyone should buy a BlackBerry, although I know that several hon. Members have one, as does the President of the United States, but it is estimated that such devices cost only £1 a day— [ Interruption. ] I see that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is checking his BlackBerry— [ Interruption. ] I apologise—I did not mean to get him into trouble. The fact is that they are very useful pieces of equipment. Imagine a police officer at the scene of a crime being able to access information from his or her BlackBerry, taking down statements there and then, and saving time.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right. We do not know what will happen next year, but if I were to decide to join the police force, I would need a great deal of training in using equipment. Without training and support, new equipment is meaningless. However, there are examples of good practice all over the country. In Bedfordshire, the introduction of personal digital assistants—PDAs—meant that police officers spent 46 per cent. more time out of their stations. So there is every reason to support the introduction of better equipment and to give all officers access to it. It is not sufficient to allow some officers to have such equipment. If it is decided that it will be useful, everyone should have it.
	Finally, because I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate— [ Interruption. ] I am happy to hear from all hon. Members on this issue, because it is one that we should debate on many more occasions than we do. I have a problem with grounding rules, or however the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell describes his new proposals, because they would need to be monitored. I am not saying that the suggestion is bad because it was mooted by the shadow Home Secretary. I am saying that we need to be very careful about how we use such powers. It is of course important to take up fresh ideas, but if we merely take young people off the streets and confine them to their homes, they will still have to be monitored regularly by the police.
	I was very interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) said about what is happening on Merseyside with Operation Staysafe. Indeed, there is not that much difference between what is happening there and the Opposition's proposals for curfews. I am not against the principle of curfews, but we should consider their use carefully to ensure that police time, although not necessarily the money, is costed. If we are saving the police time in terms of cutting bureaucracy, we need to ensure that that time is used effectively. I hope that when the proposals are fleshed out, we will know the result of that analysis. If the proposals turn out to be good, the Government should accept them—we should be able to build on fresh, new ideas that will benefit people.
	We have just come to the end of our inquiry on knife crime, and the Select Committee took evidence today from a number of witnesses. In private session, we took evidence from a number of young people involved in knife crime who have now been helped by the Prince's Trust. We then took public evidence from the director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, who, in an interesting statement to the Committee, said that the criminal justice system was the most expensive blunt instrument that we can use to reduce the level of crime. She was basically saying that by the time somebody got to be a statistic, it was far too late, and that we needed early intervention to prevent that from happening.
	I know that the statement made by the former Prime Minister about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime causes some merriment among the Opposition, but I say to the Government that it is important that we consider the causes and the investment that we can make in providing assistance to those in our education system and our schools, to those who have been excluded and to those in bad housing. It is important that we consider the huge issues that we do not want to tackle, because we are politicians, and the Home Secretary, in particular, has to make instant decisions and provide the public with an instant panacea to deal with the huge problem of the underlying causes of crime.
	Of course, we are getting to the end of this Parliament, with about a year and a half to go before there will be a general election. Maybe we should have tried to work on this problem sooner, but it is incumbent on the Government and on Ministers, who are listening carefully to what I am saying, to consider the long-term solutions even at this stage, with a year and a bit to go until the end of the Parliament. They should set in stone the values and principles for the future. We are all against an increase in crime, we all want to see more bobbies on the beat and we all want to get value for money. Those issues unite everyone, but communicating the fundamental values to the public so that they can be discussed is important. That is why one of the overlooked recommendations of the Select Committee was that we should have a royal commission into policing to consider why we have police officers, what they do, Parliament's vision for them and how they fit with the law and order issues that we discuss. In grappling with the short-term problems of crime—those problems are clearly short-term, as crime happens daily, hourly and every minute—will the Government also use the opportunity to consider the long term and to lay the foundation stones that will make this society much safer?

Humfrey Malins: I will to come on to that. Value for money, for me, means that people come out of Feltham, or anywhere else, and do not reoffend. That, I think, is what will save money.
	Worse still, Government figures show that the 80 per cent. of those released who reoffend within one year do so, on average, four times in that year. Given that people are caught only once in every eight crimes that they commit, nobody can doubt the fact that, in effect, those youngsters are coming out and committing 30 or 40 crimes in their first year. At a cost of £33,000 a year, that is failure on a grand scale.
	What are my remedies and solutions, if any? I have a few, which I want to draw to the attention of the House, and the first relates to literacy and numeracy. When someone arrives at a young offenders institution, on day one—I do not mean month one; I mean day one—a complete assessment of their educational position hitherto and their achievements should be undertaken. If they have been statemented, a full copy of the statement, binding on the prison, should be provided, and the prison should act upon it. Straightaway after that, a plan for that individual offender should be drawn up, showing what he or she must achieve in their time in that young offenders institution.
	I wonder whether hon. Members know how many hours a week people in young offenders institutions spend on education. Would they think that it was six hours a day? Six hours a day spent in education would be fair enough. I will tell hon. Members the answer: Feltham, seven and a half hours a week; Glen Parva, five hours a week; Reading, five hours a week; Aylesbury, six hours a week; and Rochester, three and a half hours a week. Will someone tell me that that is good news? It is not.
	What about being locked up in the cells? How long does one feel that it is a great idea to lock up a young man in a cell each day? Would six, eight, nine or 10 hours be right? Let us look at the figures; they are depressing. At Aylesbury, young people are locked up in the cells for 17 hours a day. That is horrific. What does it do? At Reading, they are locked up for 16.5 hours.
	What about sport? I am old-fashioned, but I reckon that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the value of sport, activity and physical work. I do not just mean PE in a gymnasium. A lot of those young people are pushing iron all day, or half the day or for a couple of hours, and according to the powers that be, all that does is make them stronger, and they can run away faster. No, I am talking about sport, out on the field in the open air. I met a young man who had not seen daylight in four months at a young offenders institution. Where is the sport? How many hours are spent on sport—real sport, team sport and active sport? Does sport help to develop character? I think that it does. People in our young offender estate are doing two or three hours a week on average.
	Perhaps I am a little fanciful when I say that the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme is terrific. It is my pet hobby. I met an employer who interviewed everyone who came to him who had done the DOE. It is not done enough—barely at all—at places such Feltham, Portland and other institutions. There have been only one or two bronze awards in the past six years, out of hundreds of young men going through the system.
	Here is a revolutionary idea: I really believe that education—literacy and numeracy—is vital, which to me means that short sentences of six, eight or 10 weeks are a waste of time. We cannot do anything with a youngster in that period. All the judges whom I have spoken to say, "For goodness' sake, put them away for nine months, because then you can make some real advances. If a crime is not serious enough for nine months inside, don't bother. Don't faff around"—I am not sure how  Hansard will take that word—"with six weeks, because it's a revolving door; they are straight out, having laid low, and they come out no better."

David Davies: The Government are right to publish those figures. Some good work is being done by the Government at the moment, and I will come to that before I make too many criticisms, but I shall first return to the picture of crime and follow some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
	All sorts of reasons are given about why crime is so high—as another hon. Member said, it is certainly too high—but I do not personally accept that poverty is one of them. Of course, one can find a statistical link between poverty and crime, but simply not having money does not cause people to commit crime. Happily, I come from a reasonably comfortable background, although perhaps not as privileged as some. My mother was a miner's daughter. She grew up in relative poverty. She says that there was hardly any crime in her community. My wife is from a family of agricultural labourers in eastern Europe. They live in a block of flats, where there is no crime, no graffiti and people are nice to one another.
	What causes crime? Although this sounds a little old-fashioned, I think that the cause in many cases is a lack of proper family structure, but I take issue with people who talk about single-parent mothers. Such comments are lazy and an insult to the vast majority of people who do an excellent job in bringing up their children. I would never use that term, and I hope that other Members would not use it either. However, we ought to be honest enough to admit that there is a problem in some estates that have high levels of poverty with young people who become pregnant. If we ever talk about single-parent mothers, let us admit that it takes two to tango; there is a single father somewhere who has behaved in an irresponsible fashion.
	We in this Chamber all have relatively comfortable lives and are responsible people, but we all know how difficult it is to get our children to say please and thank you, and to mind their manners. How much harder will that be for somebody with very little education and money who lives on a difficult estate? It will be impossible. Sadly, children who grow up surrounded by crime, drugs and benefits are likely to fall into the system. I do not know whether I put that tactfully enough, but it is true and we all know it. We should be able to address that.
	We need to do more to support schools. It is a cliché, but by the time people are in the clutches of the police, it is too late. We need to be able to tackle bad behaviour before things get that far. That is why we should be doing more to support schools that want to take disciplinary measures against pupils—and not just pupils who walk in carrying knives, or who assault teachers, but pupils who walk in without their top button done up, or not wearing the proper uniform. That way, children will know that there are boundaries and things that they cannot do, and that if they transgress those boundaries, there will be consequences. That message does not get through at the moment.
	I have some experience of the police, and experience of some of the good things that the Government are doing. I do not want to be critical all the time; there are Government initiatives that I fully support. For example, I support greater use of the Taser. I saw the most ludicrous Liberal Democrat press release this morning. It refers to "Taser guns". Clearly, the Liberal Democrats are not aware that a Taser is not a gun at all; it is not a firearm, in the sense that it does not fire a projectile bullet. A Taser is far less dangerous than the baton that all police officers carry. That is why it is possible for police officers to fire a Taser at each other to experience the effects. Nobody in their right mind would stand there while somebody hit them with a police-issue baton, which could be absolutely lethal if it caught somebody in the wrong place. I notice that the press release refers to "children". In their inconsistent fashion, the Liberal Democrats refer to "children" whenever somebody aged between 16 and 18 is involved in the criminal justice system, but to "adults" when coming forward with other ludicrous policies, such as giving voting rights to 16-year-olds, a subject that we will not go into now.

David Davies: I would be happy to do so if the hon. Gentleman let somebody wallop him over the head with a baton; that is the alternative that police officers have at the moment.
	What the Government have done on forms is quite good. The stop and account form is going, but there is more that they could do. The stop and search form is still very lengthy. I accept that there are situations in which it needs to be fully filled in, but when members of the public are stopped and subjected to a random search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, often the problem is not so much that they find the search intrusive; it is more that they are irritated about the fact that they have to stand around for five or 10 minutes while the police officer takes down all sorts of information, which is often unnecessary. That delays them in getting to where they want to go. The search that is usually carried out is no different to the one that we all experience when we go into an airport. The public are getting used to the idea that a quick frisk is sometimes necessary for their own safety. The issue is the length of the form and the fact that the public are not aware that they do not have to wait for the police officer to fill it all in. Police officers should be encouraged to say, "You don't have to wait, but if you want a record of the search, I am happy to get it for you."
	As I have mentioned before, it is inconsistent that police officers who stop people who are committing offences, who simply wish to talk to a person, or who detain a person so that they can be summonsed for a revenue offence, cannot carry out a quick search. Very often, those people are involved in criminality, and I would change the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow that to happen. If the Minister for Borders and Immigration wants to make a quick hit and get rid of a whole load of paperwork, he could give the British Transport police the power to issue penalty notices for disorder for revenue offences. Transport for London can do so, but the police cannot, which means that they have to get through a whole load of paperwork if they want to prosecute somebody for such an offence.
	To return to the big picture, the problem is not the number of police officers. There are adequate numbers of police officers. The problem is that a small number of people commit so much crime that they take up all the time that should be available to police officers. In 2003, the Carter report suggested that half of all crime in this country is carried out by about 100,000 people, of whom only 15,000 are in prison at any particular time. Every police officer meets those people almost daily. They are arrested; two officers take them to a police station; a whole laborious process is gone through; the person is bailed and is then back out on the streets, and carries out further offences on the following day. That is why we need not more police officers, but more prison officers and prisons.
	I do not accept the comments made about the cost of keeping people in prison. The cost of keeping somebody in a category D prison is about £25,000 a year. Most of the people who go to those prisons are on benefits. It was not I who brought up the issue of cost, but other Members have done so. The net cost of keeping somebody in prison is far cheaper than people realise. I believe that the net cost to the taxpayer of keeping somebody in a category D prison is not more than about £10,000 a year. The cost of keeping them out on the streets committing one offence after another is absolutely horrendous. It is also a huge burden on police time.
	I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. There are two prisons in my constituency, which I have visited. I have also visited other prisons with the Home Affairs Committee. There is nothing like as much work going on in those prisons to help offenders as there could be. What I propose is not dissimilar to what my hon. Friend suggested. Yes, we should put people in prison, and make it clear to them that they should serve their sentence in full. It is a disgrace that somebody given four years in prison could be out in one year and seven months under some sort of early release scheme, and that somebody sentenced to a year in prison will be out after just three months.
	One of the reasons why reoffending is so high is that prison is not seen as any sort of deterrent. A Faustian pact is made; because people are usually in prison for only a couple of months, the authorities effectively say, "Give us a quiet life and you can have your PlayStation and your television. Just don't cause us any trouble," so people spend all their time in their cells. We should get people out of their cells and get them working. We should give them practical skills. That is what happens in prisons such as Usk, which deals with special types of offenders. We should get that sort of culture into all prisons, particularly those dealing with younger people. Remission should not be automatic. Indeed, I am opposed in general to any form of early release. However, if we are to have early release, I would make it conditional on people getting rudimentary educational skills, passing exams and getting some sort of vocational skill that could give them a chance to work in the real world. Unless we start to tackle what goes on in the justice system, crime will continue to rise, and the police will find it harder and harder to cope.

Anne Main: In the few short minutes that I have, I should like to draw the Government's attention to Flycapture, a well thought out initiative that has unfortunately not been well executed. The Minister is frowning—perhaps for the same reason why many in my community have been frowning. Flycapture involves the central recording of fly-tipping in various constituencies. Fly-tipping blights many rural constituencies. With National Farmers Union representatives, I went to my local police county headquarters and attended a summit on this very matter. I find it disturbing that the county council, the police, the district council, the Gypsy and Traveller liaison officer and others involved in dealing with various aspects of fly-tipping clearance were unaware of the Flycapture system and unaware that there was central recording. Will the Government look into the system, roll out it out further and agree that local authorities need to come to a co-ordinated approach, so that we can crack down on rural crime and fly-tipping?
	Many people in prisons have mental health issues—something that has not been particularly touched on in this debate. I am concerned that many in prison should have had much more care in the community and help with their mental health problems before they ended up there. When such people leave prison, they are often in a worse state than when they entered it. The Government should address that problem and ensure that resources go into communities to make sure that, as far as possible—as far as it can be controlled—it does not happen in future.
	I should like to pay tribute to the Muslim community, particularly in St. Albans. It is looking at various issues, including minimising extremism, terrorism and the radicalisation of Muslim youths. I met Muslim leaders in my community on Friday. They are setting up Ummah UK, a community group to pull together Muslim groups, teach them about terrorism and extremism and how to resist it, and encourage them to resist the increasing use of drugs and alcohol that, unfortunately, dogs some ethnic minority communities. The group aims to work with the community to give a positive role model and promote positive activities. I congratulate the Muslim community in my area on looking to help policing in my community and for keeping its young people actively engaged with others there and with keeping their lives on track.
	I, too, am concerned about the policing numbers reported in  The Times today. I completely concur with those who have said that we need to have confidence that the figures are completely accurate.

Crispin Blunt: When the Home Secretary replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), she remarked on the consistency of his remarks with a speech that he gave yesterday to the Local Government Association. Well, she is going to hear a consistent message from him. She began the substance of her remarks with a reply to a charge about gimmicks, which my hon. Friend had not made; some sensitivity there, I think. With a history of eye-catching initiatives, tsars of one sort or another and policing by press release substituting for a coherent approach, her sensitivity is hardly surprising. However, I enjoyed her quote from Sir John Major at the party conference in 1993, when he said that we should
	"condemn a little more and understand a little less".
	She is right to note that there has been a change of tone associated with the arrival of my hon. Friend as shadow Home Secretary.
	The Liberal party spokesman helpfully made the case for early intervention, as in the proposal on grounding that my hon. Friend is developing. He and I, as new members of the shadow home affairs team, were flattered by the charge of being Napoleonic and Caesarist. I will allow him to choose which role model he would like to follow, and I will be happy to take the other.
	The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee was correct about the importance of this debate, and correct to be sceptical about the effectiveness of apparent police numbers. I noted that he agrees with us about the removal of targets from policing, for which we have been asking for a very long time.
	It is always instructive to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who presented extremely powerful and stark examples and statistics to the House. The failure to address educational opportunities in young offender institutions is a disaster in terms of value for money and opportunities missed for the people concerned. I commend to the House the exciting proposals to incentivise prison governors to make them accountable for reoffending rates. Our shadow justice team have some extremely interesting things to say about that, and the sooner they cease to be the shadow team and are able to put those things in place, the better.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) delivered his usual robust message about boundaries and authority, with the benefit of his experience as a special constable and on the Home Affairs Committee. However, the Government do not need to take that message from him alone. He has strong support from the chief constable of South Wales, who said, in a conference that was supposed to be closed but from which her remarks ended up being reported:
	"in many of our larger cities, in areas of extreme deprivation, there are almost feral groups of very angry young people...Many have experienced family breakdown, and in place of parental and family role models, the gang culture is now established. Tribal loyalty has replaced family loyalty and gang culture based on violence and drugs is a way of life."
	She went on to deliver a damning critique of criminal justice policy, saying:
	"in an age of cost-benefit analysis...there is no appetite for solutions that have no visible return and no patience for any which will not bear immediate political fruit."
	We have heard in this debate the sorry catalogue of the Government's failure to deliver on law and order after nearly 12 years in office. Sixteen years after a young and ambitious shadow Home Secretary set out his analysis of the need to tackle crime and its causes, we see a society in which youth disorder is rife and violent crime up by a staggering 88 per cent.  [ Interruption. ] It is not untrue. The Lord Chancellor should not intervene from a sedentary position, because these are his own Home Office statistics, about which there was an intervention on the Home Secretary. Perhaps he might choose to explain why more than 50 knife crimes are now being recorded every day, and fatal stabbings are up by a third, at an all-time high.
	Tony Blair's most famous pledge—the one that marked him out as new Labour and helped him ride to the Labour leadership—was never delivered. What a contrast with the inheritance that Labour received. Tony Blair's then opposite number, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was the first Home Secretary in decades to reverse the trend on rising crime. By force of will— and, of course, with the benefit of some pretty special advice—he changed the culture of the Home Office. In much the same way as, 10 years earlier, Baroness Thatcher challenged and changed the assumptions of the British establishment that their job was simply the civilised management of Britain's relative decline, my right hon. and learned Friend challenged and changed the perception of those at the Home Office that their job was simply to try to manage, as best one could, inevitably rising crime levels.
	These lessons we have learnt. That is why I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members pay careful attention to the comments of my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, not only in introducing this debate but in the speech that he made yesterday to the Local Government Association. The remarks introducing him made by the Leader of the Opposition—the former special adviser to the last Conservative, and last successful, Home Secretary—also bear examination. Change is coming. Focus will be given to the Home Office and the police. Addressing the causes of crime will belong to the rest of Government; the Home Office will address crime. The police will be transformed from the centre, with a straightforward mission to fight crime and empowered by clear local accountability.
	We have also learned what is not the answer. If legislative activism, money, eye-catching initiatives and bureaucratic accountability were the answer, it is inconceivable that the trend of falling crime inherited by this Government would not have continued. There have been 25 policing or crime Bills since 1997, with the latest major Bill, the Policing and Crime Bill, making its way through Committee as we speak. This endless stream of legislation might keep shadow Ministers engaged as they try to meet the challenge of getting up to speed with the latest legislative ideas in the much reduced time available to Parliament to examine them properly, but the overall effect has been highly doubtful. Such has been the blizzard of new legislation that it is well known that the judges are struggling to keep up. They are spending more time on legal refresher courses than ever before, with courts having to close as a result. If judges are struggling with this legislative blizzard, what on earth do Ministers think it is like for the police, who are expected to police the 3,000 new offences thus created?
	During the economic good times, the Government failed to keep our streets safe or to provide the prisons required to lock up the criminals who stalk them. The gloomy economic outlook that we face today means that the challenges facing the police over the coming months will get worse. Indeed, as the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said in response to a leaked Home Office document, it is "blindingly obvious" that some aspects of crime increase in a period of recession. It was reported in  The Guardian yesterday that Superintendent David Hartshorn, the head of the Metropolitan Police's public order branch—Britain's most senior police officer with responsibility for public order—raised the spectre of riots, with people who have lost their jobs, homes or savings becoming "foot soldiers" in a wave of potentially violent mass protests. Today,  The Times highlights the fall in police numbers as the ugly reality of Government finance starts to make itself felt. The mismanagement of the economy, like the mismanagement of the police and criminal justice system, has left people more vulnerable to crime and left our society more vulnerable to social disorder.
	The Government are no closer to delivering on crime today than when they first came to power. Whichever way Ministers spin figures on crime, it is clear that violent crime is up, robbery is up, gun crime has nearly doubled and knife crime is on the rise, with fatal stabbings at an all-time high. Labour has failed to empower the police to tackle the criminals, and has left some of our town centres virtual no-go areas for law-abiding citizens. Instead, despite years of criticism from the police and from the Opposition, the police are still spending a fifth of their working day dealing with paperwork. Talk about wasting police time! The huge growth in the use of discretionary cautions means that when police officers do encounter criminals it is far less likely that the criminal will ever end up in a court, let alone a prison cell. Despite all the rhetoric on knife crime, the Government still refuse to apply a presumption that carrying a knife will mean a prison sentence. Despite initiative after initiative and an unprecedented volume of criminal justice legislation, the net result after 12 years of this Government is that people feel less safe, in parts of our country antisocial behaviour has become the norm, and the innocent citizen feels that his own liberties have been curtailed to no useful purpose.
	It is time for a Government who are serious about tackling crime head on by releasing police officers to deal with the criminals, and time to mend the broken society that has allowed criminal behaviour to become endemic in our towns and cities. I commend the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, who, in speaking to the Local Government Association yesterday and in the House today, has demonstrated that he will be a worthy successor to the last Home Secretary who turned back the tide on crime—another inheritance that has been so scandalously squandered by this wretched and unhappy Government.

Phil Woolas: Yes, and it was funny then, and it is funny now. I am going to keep on using it, because it is obviously hitting home.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) made a thoughtful speech. He described our procedures as a legal whirling dervish. He described the shadow Home Secretary as dangerously Napoleonic and Caesarist—language often heard in "The Dog and Duck" in Eastleigh, I am sure—and he accused my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of populist punitiveness. I can assure the House, having worked closely alongside the Home Secretary, that she does not go in for populist punitiveness. She has yet to tell me what it means, but I am sure that it was well intended.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, made a thoughtful speech on the analysis— [ Interruption. ] My right hon. Friend is in his place, as he always is. He made a thoughtful analysis of the figures on police numbers, and got behind those figures to the issue of the allocation of police time, which is the really important point. The figures that he pointed out with regard to Gloucestershire and other police authorities were important. He talked about equipment compatibility, and I assure him that the National Police Improvement Agency is looking at that issue. He raised the case of Lincolnshire, in particular. We also thank my right hon. Friend for his Committee's report, and his work on early intervention is important. This was one of the biggest gaps in the speech of the shadow Home Secretary. I was looking forward to his analysis of the causes of crime, but detail on that subject was thin on the ground. The Chairman of the Select Committee, on the other hand, gave us a thoughtful analysis of early intervention.
	The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) gave an extremely interesting speech, clearly based on his experience. He put forward practical solutions focusing on how people in custody, particularly young men—he was right to refer to them—should be given more instruction, education and opportunities when they leave custody. There was a strange coming together of his ideas and those of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who spoke from his experience of being a special constable. On these Benches, we recognise and applaud him for that, despite our party political differences. It is good for Parliament that Members undertake such duties, and there are Members in our party who do so as well. There was an interesting coming together of the two analyses. They were different in their premises, but similar in their conclusions, and they concerned what more can be done to give young men—not just young men, but those young men in particular—that added work experience. The hon. Member for Monmouth was good enough not to play yah-boo politics, which some have done in this debate, and to acknowledge the good things that have taken place. That gave his criticisms greater force, and we take those points on board.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) stood up for his constituency by calling for more resources for Dorset, and I now turn to that point. The resources provided to Dorset police authority have gone up by 47 per cent. since 1997, which is a 12 per cent. increase in real terms. I will come on to this morning's report in  The Times in a moment, but police numbers in the hon. Gentleman's authority area have increased by 179, to 1,463 officers, under this Government.

Nick Herbert: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that British consumers are entitled to know exactly how and where the food they are eating is produced and that clear and unambiguous labelling stating the country of origin of the major ingredients is required to achieve this; further believes that this will level the playing field for British farmers and enable British consumers to show their preference for home-grown food which is produced to high standards of animal welfare, health and safety and environmental protection; notes that the rate of self-sufficiency in the food which Britain can produce itself has dropped substantially since 1997; further believes that voluntary labelling by food retailers has failed to deliver the transparency that consumers require; and calls on the Government to introduce a mandatory country of origin labelling scheme for meat and meat products without further delay.
	We have called the debate today because of a simple principle: people have a right to know where their food comes from. Currently, meat that is processed here, but imported, such as bacon, sausages and meat in ready meals, can be labelled "British". We believe that that is a dishonest system, which misleads consumers, undermines attempts to improve animal welfare and disadvantages our farmers. Nothing in current food labelling regulations defines how much British involvement is required before food can qualify as British. A combination of European Union directives, United Kingdom legislation and domestic regulations has created an environment in which consumers are confused and misled by the labelling of their food.
	Last week, my office visited some major supermarkets and found several products with no country of origin information. Many others were simply labelled, "Produced in the UK", which might lead somebody to believe that the meat was from this country. We found a Birds Eye Great British Menu roast beef meal, which admitted on the back that the beef was imported—that is not very British. We even found a Marks and Spencer sandwich, emblazoned with the "nation's favourite sandwich" and a Union flag, which admitted on the reverse, in rather smaller print, that the corned beef came from Brazil. Those buying a Tesco Disney-branded children's roast dinner, labelled "Produced in the UK", would not know that they were feeding their children chicken from Thailand. They would know that only if they took the time to call the customer helpline.
	If people wish to eat imported chicken, that should be their choice. Consumers should be free to choose food from any country. We are in Fairtrade fortnight, and we acknowledge that many people choose to support producers in developing countries. After all, British farmers have important export markets, too. However, real choice requires real information. Clear labelling would empower consumers, not restrict their options. Two thirds of pigmeat imported into this country might have been reared in conditions that are banned here. The current rules force our farmers, who have high welfare standards, to compete against cheaper meat products that can still be labelled as British. Shoppers who wish to endorse higher animal welfare standards by buying British may end up unintentionally backing more cruel methods of production overseas. That is why we think that a system of clear labelling is essential, and it is overwhelmingly supported by the public.

Andrew George: In view of the Conservatives' enthusiasm for transparency in the food chain, I would be interested in the hon. Gentlemen's view on the Competition Commission's inquiry last year, which found that supermarkets transfer excessive cost and risk to suppliers and which recommended the establishment of a grocery sector ombudsman. If such transparency were introduced in the food supply chain, surely that would assist him and his party in achieving the kind of objectives that he is advocating today. Would the Conservatives therefore support the recommendations of the Competition Commission inquiry into the supermarkets?

Nick Herbert: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is evidence that some retailers have been willing to move towards more transparent labelling in respect of premium products, but on the value labels, they have not been so willing. I hope that our survey will give them more confidence that people would support British production across their product ranges, but in any case, I do not think that we should resile from the principle that the consumer should know where the meat comes from, irrespective of the price, and then make a choice. We should stand by that principle.
	Opposition Members thus believe that the only course now is to adopt compulsory country of origin labelling. In the first instance, we believe that it should apply to meat and meat products, where the instances of misleading labelling, and their effects, are particularly serious. Beef labelling regulations first introduced in 1997 in reaction to BSE have proved workable. In general, all beef and veal must already indicate the country of origin, by reference to the place where the animal was born, reared and slaughtered. The time has come to extend that practice. So last week, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I launched the honest food campaign to ensure that imported meat cannot be simply processed in this country and then labelled with a British flag. We propose to introduce a food labelling regulations (amendment) Bill to make honest labelling of all meat and meat products a statutory requirement. It echoes a number of similar private Members' Bills that have been promoted by Conservative Members over the past few years, most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon).
	To date, the Government have resisted those proposals. I urge them to reconsider and to join a growing consensus in the belief that change is needed. As well as the farming industry and trade associations representing the livestock sector, animal welfare groups such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming are also supporting the objectives of the honest food campaign. Let us be clear: those organisations are not supporting another voluntary scheme; they are calling for compulsory country of origin labelling.
	Our plans would follow similar approaches taken in America and Australia. Both countries recognised that their consumers were being duped by the existing packaging and the natural demand for the correct information required labelling rules that had legal force. Their experience shows that the cost of better labelling will be negligible. In the United States, a study put the increased cost of origin labelling for poultry at as little as 0.01 per cent., while the EU has said that small businesses consulted would expect a positive impact from compulsory origin labelling.
	Of course, new regulations need to be proportionate. That is why we are proposing in our own draft Bill that the regulations will require the labelling of meat ingredients when they represent 10 per cent. or more of a product. So, for example, a typical ready meal would be covered, as most consumers would expect, but not a pepperoni pizza—unless the manufacturer decided otherwise. I believe that this proposal strikes the right balance between the consumer interest and what is practicable.
	In their own amendment for tonight's debate and elsewhere, the Government have claimed that what we are proposing, even if desirable, is not possible under EU law. We disagree. Our Bill is not about restricting trade. It will simply require UK processors and retailers to label their products appropriately. Under EU regulations on the marketing of foodstuffs, member states can require the labelling of origin when the absence of such information could mislead or confuse the consumer—and our consumers are being misled.
	Ministers claim what we are proposing has been tried already. They point to a recent attempt by the Irish Government to introduce country of origin labelling for poultry, pig and sheepmeat, which the European Commission rejected. The Irish Government may not have been able to convince the Commission, and they were not helped by the fact that the British Government did not support them, but we can produce the evidence that UK consumers are being misled. The latest surveys of public opinion show that. For that and other reasons, we have received legal advice and we are confident that what we propose is permissible. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government believe that it is not.
	The Irish Government went to the Commission and at least made the case; they stood up for the interests of their consumers and their farming industry, while other countries have succeeded with labelling schemes within the EU rules. The Commission approved the mandatory origin labelling for Spanish asparagus in 2003 on the ground that consumers would otherwise be misled. This is about political will. The job of a Government who care about their farming industry and consumer choice is to do everything possible to put the case and, if necessary, to challenge and change the rules.
	Under this Government, our nation's reliance on imports has increased by 8 per cent. There have been major declines in the production of cereals and meat. There has been a widening food, drink and feed deficit, which stands at more than £14 billion. The pendulum has been allowed to swing too far away from domestic production. Using imports as a substitute for produce that could perfectly well be grown here is a waste of potential. Increasing self-sufficiency in the food we can produce ourselves should be a strategic priority.
	Of course food security must not be an argument for a retreat into protectionism or central planning, but we need properly to assess the role that we want our farmers to play. Conservative Members want to enable our farmers to do what they can do best: produce high-quality food and respond to consumer demand. They cannot do that effectively if the rules governing labelling leave them disadvantaged in the marketplace. Compulsory country of origin labelling is right for Britain and with the EU negotiations under way, now is the time to take a stand.
	The Government's plan for a voluntary agreement on food labelling with retailers has passed its sell-by date, and they must stand up for British consumers and farmers. Other EU countries fight for the interests of their consumers and their farming industries within the trading rules. It is time for the British Government to show the same spine. It is time to end misleading labelling and to enable consumers to choose British food with confidence.

Jane Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—indeed, I agree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs—but there are points of difference, which I wish to explore and explain. I have read the Conservative proposals in detail and they form a well written document, if I might be allowed to say so, but I have some quite stringent criticisms to make of it, which I will come to.
	In meeting demand today, we must ensure that we do not destroy our ability to feed ourselves tomorrow. This is not about either environmental sustainability or production; it has to be both. The general public are becoming increasingly interested in the issue of labelling and the origin of foods, and I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that the public should have confidence in the labelling system, so that when they make the choice to buy British, for whatever reason—if they want to support British farming, for whatever purpose—they know that they are buying British produce.

Jane Kennedy: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about Shropshire, but in a moment I will come to why there are distinct and real differences between the positions described in the motion and in the amendment.
	The issue of labelling has recently been played out in the media, too, and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs was right to highlight Jamie Oliver's investigation of pig welfare standards in Europe. The programme was broadcast in January and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I participated in it, although it was filmed a little while ago. As I said to the NFU conference, Jamie Oliver is to be congratulated on shining the spotlight on an area that deserves to be brought into focus. I hope that today's debate will continue to raise awareness and improve the public's understanding of the issue.
	My views and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are perfectly clear: we want people to be able to buy British and to support British farmers. The British public care about what they eat. Imported food is good and important for variety. It also reflects the cultural diversity of the UK, but by buying British consumers support the industry and, especially in the pig industry, higher welfare standards. The Conservative party passed the key welfare standard change—the abolition of sow stalls. We implemented that change, which means that our pig farmers are right when they say that they are at a disadvantage. That is why the Select Committee report that examined the issue so carefully and in such detail was so timely. Its conclusions are important.

Andrew Murrison: The right hon. Lady said that the problems facing the pork sector were not all to do with labelling, and that is clearly true. However, does she remember telling Jamie Oliver that misleading labelling was a disgrace, and does she remember undertaking to meet the challenge of remedying that problem? She seems to be backing away from that, and trying to down-play the importance of labelling.

Jane Kennedy: The Conservative party's website. The document says that the Conservatives would
	"write into law a new definition of country of origin for meat and meat products so that it means what consumers rightly assume",
	which would form part of a Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment) Bill.
	I accept that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs has received legal advice. It has been published, and I have read it with interest. However, according to legal advice that I received as recently as today in order to test the ideas presented by the Conservatives, the hon. Gentleman's proposal is certain—not almost certain—to fail the legal test that the European Commission would set.

Jane Kennedy: I will investigate the options. I certainly want to share as much of it as I can with the task force with which I shall be working early in March.

Jane Kennedy: That is within the scope of the discussions that are taking place in the European Commission about how we as a Community should improve the laws on labelling, in order to make sure that there is not misleading labelling used in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes.
	Let me respond to the accusation, which has been repeated, that nothing has been done in 10 years. First, the FSA has been created, and the guidance it has issued has brought about real changes in the quality of labelling. That has clearly opened up the possibility of further criticism, which has been trenchantly made today—

Jane Kennedy: May I just finish this point? Given the Conservatives' famously robust view of Europe, how do they propose to get their new law through such scrutiny? They are completely isolated in Europe, and already lack support for their key policies, such as renegotiating a ratified treaty of Lisbon. On that key policy, they are supported by the Dutch animals party, the French hunting, fishing, nature, tradition party, Sinn Fein and some communists.  [Interruption.] On renegotiating the treaty of Amsterdam regarding the social chapter, they have no support from any quarter— [Interruption.]—and they do not like it when they are reminded of it. In both such instances, there is no support for their position from any of the 26 member states.  [Interruption.] This is an important and serious point: how will their proposal on food labelling fare any differently from these two other no-hope options that are key policy objectives of the Conservative party? I believe that its policy statement is a dishonest position because it cannot be achieved. I will want to study it carefully to see if there is any merit at all in it, but I am not convinced that there is.
	We all agree that consumers need clear information to enable them to make informed decisions, but the Opposition's simplistic solution of introducing new domestic legislation is not the silver bullet that they are asking this House, the farming community and citizens to believe. They claim that there will be no costs incurred, but on what do they base that claim? Can they be sure that businesses and families who are struggling to make ends meet would not be adversely affected? How will they get their plans on to the statute book without a costly, complicated and drawn-out row with the European Commission, which has already sent back less demanding proposals from the Irish Government?
	Our approach is more proportionate; it is based on what is deliverable. Even a narrowly drawn UK option that might succeed would take years to succeed, and I am not prepared to wait for that. I am prepared to make the approaches that are necessary and I will do so, but I want improvements now. More importantly, I want to see what can be delivered and for it to be delivered as quickly as possible.

Tim Farron: That is indeed what I am proceeding to do.
	To recap, we will support the Conservative motion, but it is important to highlight that we believe that accurate food labelling should be only one aspect of a more comprehensive approach to ensuring a fair market in food production. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, to whom I pay tribute and whom I welcome to his new role—he made a strong and sound case for his motion—stated his belief in mandatory intervention, but that belief appears to start and end with accurate labelling. Indeed, he stated at the NFU conference last week that
	"a culture of responsibility is better than a culture of regulation".
	That sounds chillingly similar to the approach of his shadow Chancellor and, indeed, the Prime Minister ahead of the banking crisis, but I agree with Peter Kendall, the NFU president, who said that
	"when there is proven abuse of the voluntary approach, and it has been tried and tested and failed, that tells me that regulation is urgently required".
	The Conservatives have not chosen to debate British agriculture, as has been mentioned, and the wider fundamental and systemic problems that face our industry; instead, they have chosen to discuss a very important symptom of those problems. For what it is worth, the Conservative proposal on this issue mirrors ours—congratulations to them—but although we will support the motion, I cannot help but observe that it simply represents the party of the free market complaining about the consequences of the free market.
	We need regulation that will help our farmers and consumers, and we need to be consistent in our demands for fairness throughout the market. How many of us go shopping and seek out fair trade coffee in one aisle, before heading down another aisle to buy milk to put in that coffee sourced from an exploited British dairy farmer who is paid less for that litre of milk than it cost them to produce it? I am passionate about ensuring fair trade for coffee growers in Colombia and for dairy farmers in Cumbria.
	Of course, consumers can achieve a lot by buying fair trade produce and by buying British produce, and that is why it is so important that we have a comprehensive and mandatory food labelling system to empower consumers and to give them the information that they need to exercise choice, but consumer action is not enough. Farmers and consumers have the right to expect that their Government will be on their side, and now is the time to intervene and to take sides.
	We take the side of farmers and consumers, not big business. I am not anti-market; but in food production as in banking, we want the market to be our servant, not our master. When we have huge fluctuations in production, short-sighted profit chasing by over-powerful supermarkets and farmers struggling to survive, the market is not working.

Bill Wiggin: I read  Farmers Weekly, and this morning when I was reading the editorial comment I saw that Jane King could not tell the difference between what the Conservative party believes in and what the Government believe in. I hope that she will read the speeches made in the debate and see that there is a massive void between a Government who are determined to protect the European Commission from making any decision whatever and my own party, which is determined to make a difference, to fight for our farmers and to allow our consumers to help our farming industry.
	The Minister was right to mention the egg sector, but her speech was definitely a rotten one. She did not even manage to answer my question in an intervention about what she was doing to ensure that the Ministry of Defence bought British bacon for our troops. They are fighting for us and dying for us, and they deserve to be fed by us. I hope that she will do what she can to put the situation right.
	As for the Liberal Democrats, they are absolutely right in their soundbites and I hope that they get their policies in order so that the dairy farmers, who know that they are being exploited, at least hear something that they can hope will be delivered. At the moment, the Liberal Democrats do not have a policy that has any credibility whatever, and I am sorry about that.
	In my constituency, farming really matters. The 2001 census showed that there were more than 3,600 people employed in it, which represents 9 per cent. of the local work force. My constituents need this Government or any Government to do three things, and the next Conservative Government will certainly do them. The first is to examine the red tape burden on our farmers. Compulsory electronic ID tags for sheep have been trialled in my constituency, and one of my constituents wrote to me saying that they had
	"found the system was not practicable or reliable enough to work on a one man commercially run flock."
	I hope that the Government will listen to the people who have been trialling such things and do their best to ensure that such unnecessary burdens are not heaped upon our sheep farmers. The nitrate vulnerable zones that have been rolled out across large parts of our county are simply an extra burden, and I suspect that they will not deliver the benefits envisaged in the Government's well intentioned policy. They will cause more trouble, difficulty and cost, and they will not deliver the clean water that we want.
	The next problem is the Government's policy. I do not think that farmers feel that the Government are supporting them, and there is no finer example of that than the cider producers in my constituency. Bulmers has already closed its bottling plant with the loss of 54 jobs, and in the Budget in March 2008 the Government increased duties on bottled cider by 9 per cent. In last November's pre-Budget report, they increased them by a further 8 per cent. Nobody could argue that we want anything other than a level playing field on which to compete, but when such extra burdens are added to a fine British industry, one can only despair about what is going through the Government's mind.
	Time and again, I raise bovine TB. Hereford beef is the finest in the world—it is the most popular and the best. I am happy to declare an interest in that I have Hereford cattle—I am proud of that. How on earth can we continue to produce the finest beef in the world when only this week I got an e-mail from one of my farming constituents, who has the oldest herd of Hereford cattle in the world, saying that he had 150 cows taken away because of TB? We have the highest badger concentration—nearly four per square kilometre. Those badgers go away and die in agony in their setts. The disease starts with ulcers in their bladders and spreads to the other organs of their bodies. We can move on from the debate about the £100 million of taxpayers' money that is being spent on the TB strategy that is not working, but the animal welfare implications of the suffering of those badgers is unacceptable, and the Government's refusal to do anything about it is simply wrong.
	I call on the Under-Secretary to listen carefully to my hon. Friends' comments. We must stop importing cruel practices and stop badgers' unnecessary suffering. We must stop misinforming the public about what they buy and start helping consumers to help our farmers. Most important, we must use the Government's purchasing power to ensure that our troops, our schools and our hospitals get the finest food in the world—that means that it has got to be British and say so on the label.

Daniel Rogerson: I shall be brief, because other hon. Members wish to get in on this debate.
	I am glad that we have heard little in the most recent contributions about the wider issues of self-sufficiency in the industry. The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) referred to the bovine TB crisis. Only last night, very late on, I received a message that one of the farmers in my constituency was facing repossession. The blame for the problems that he has experienced, which are also obviously connected with other financial issues, can be laid at the door of the bovine TB crisis and the Government's inaction. Fortunately, I heard this morning that, following the small contribution that I was able to make and, I am sure, the excellent representation that he received, a deal was struck and that farmer is able to continue on his farm.
	However, there are many farmers throughout the country who face great difficulties, so I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue. I also echo his comments about the Government needing to tackle the problem and act on the recommendations of the report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am pleased to be a member.
	I want briefly to address the wider issues of labelling. Indeed, I was grateful when I heard yesterday that labelling would be the topic of debate this evening. Along with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency, the Government need to address issues connected with the nutritional information with which people are provided. I should probably put on record the fact that I chair the all-party group on cheese—indeed, there are other members of the group in the Chamber this evening.
	We have talked about the diary industry and livestock farmers, and the problems that they face, and we are moving down the path towards the traffic-light labelling system, which has some perverse effects in indicating to the consumer how they can make healthy choices about what they eat. For example, a product such as cheese—a product that has been produced for thousands of years in western Europe; a product that has been not only a core part of our diet through all sorts of experiences, but a part of our culture; a product that is rich in protein and high in calcium, which are vital, particularly to women, who may suffer from osteoporosis later in life—can be ruled out by having red lights all over it, owing to its fat and salt content, yet those red lights are based purely on comparing 100 g of cheese with all sorts of other products.
	I am indebted to the Food and Drink Federation for its work on this issue in promoting the alternative of the GDA—guideline daily amounts—scheme. That labelling takes a little reading, but it is far clearer to the consumer and far better in the quality of information it provides.

Andrew Murrison: I declare an interest as a keeper of rare-breed pigs. I have four minutes to cover pigs, pork and bacon.
	I am very proud indeed of the animal welfare standards in the UK, but the rest of the EU seems to be capitalising on our good nature. Rightly or wrongly, most of our constituents believe that their Government observe and gold-plate EU directives that the rest of the EU pays lip service to. That impression, I am afraid, is borne out by the sad story of the British pig industry.
	What on earth did the Government think would happen when, in 1999, they changed pig welfare standards unilaterally, without the possibility of any form of import control, so that cheap meat from pigs kept in lousy conditions would flood the UK market and trash indigenous mid to low-end production? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has visited some pretty dreadful things on farmers these past few years, but as an exercise in sheer stupidity that takes the biscuit. The result has been that we have simply exported cheap, cruel meat production to the continent.
	Today, we have heard a lot about the misdeeds of supermarkets. I was in a supermarket in my constituency at the weekend. A big banner said, "We only sell British Pork". Many would think that that included bacon, but the sainted Jamie Oliver has alerted us to the sharp practices of our supermarkets. And lo, what do we find, but that particular supermarket is peddling a large quantity of Danish bacon?
	As Jamie told the Health Committee recently:
	"I think labelling in Great Britain is a disgrace. Categorically, we are run by the EU on labelling."
	He is absolutely right. We find on the front of packs "Sourced in the UK", yet on the back—in the tiniest font, illegible to many of our constituents, or at least to those who do not have 20:20 vision—we find that the product is grown anywhere but the UK.
	The commercially obliging badge "Produced in the UK" is admissible under World Trade Organisation rules, EU law and the labelling regulations if the very last stage in the food processing took place here, even if the ingredients on which it is based were largely produced abroad.
	A picture paints a thousand words. Idyllic rural scenes on packets of meat scream "Made in Britain". That does not happen by chance, for the supermarket marketing men are well versed in human psychology. Flip the pack over and if people have good eyesight they will see that the meat is extremely well travelled.
	My own favourite is something that its retailer is pleased to call Wiltshire cured bacon. There is a way to cure bacon in the Wiltshire manner. I found it in Mrs. Beeton's cook book at the weekend, and I suspect that the supermarket in question found it there too. I have no way of telling how true to the Wiltshire curing method that bacon is, but that is irrelevant. The purpose of marketing Wiltshire cured bacon is to suggest to the customer that the product is British and therefore trustworthy. Look at the small print and we see that the product is from elsewhere in the EU.
	Last month, the Secretary of State stamped his foot and told supermarkets to play fair. He said that they were harming the Government's attempts to get people to buy British food, but this Minister's Government have presided over all this. They have exported our one-time poor animal welfare standards to the continent and have trashed the British pork industry in the process. She may agree with Jamie Oliver that that is a disgrace, but if that is so, it is a disgrace that this Government have presided over.

James Paice: Let me begin by reminding the House of my interests, as declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
	Opposition Members are fortunate in that we shadow a team of Ministers all of whom, individually, are very nice and charming. They may not say the same about us, but that is by the by. That charm, however, cannot disguise their ineffectiveness in dealing with some of our crucial issues. We called this debate with the aim of focusing on just one of the many issues that face agriculture at present, although we do not suggest that it provides the sole answer to the problems of farming.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) mentioned food security and the need for it to be debated. I remind him that we had such a debate last summer, called by the Opposition, in Opposition time. I do not recall the last occasion on which the Government arranged any debate on agriculture in Government time, and I have to say that the same goes for the Liberal Democrats.
	Since the 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy, Ministers rightly no longer have the ability, effectively, to fix farm-gate prices, although the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) apparently regrets that. If the Government really want to promote agriculture in this country they must use other methods, one of which is to make the market work. If we expect farmers to operate in the free market—and I think most Members believe that that is the right way forward—it is incumbent on Government to make the market work effectively, and one of the key factors in that is ensuring that the consumer is properly informed and able to make a free choice.
	I was astonished by the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Although he was keen to quote such people as Adam Smith, it seemed to me that he had no understanding of the way in which a market truly operates. According to the press release that he issued today, my party is seen as the party of markets, yet now we seek to regulate. We have never suggested that there is no need for any regulation at all. On the contrary, there is a need for regulation when the market fails, and this is a clear example of the market's failing.

James Paice: No, I will not.
	That is why we have proposed a Bill to deal with the problem. That is why we support the proposals of the Competition Commission on supermarkets, why we supported the abandoned merger of two milk groups, and why we want all public procurement to specify British standards. We want regulation only where it is necessary, but, as our motion says, in the instance of food labelling the market has failed, and regulation is therefore necessary.
	The Minister referred to her constant meetings. The issue of the Jamie Oliver programme has cropped up several times, and she rightly mentioned our participation in it. The recording took place on 3 November, only a few days after the Minister had taken office. She could therefore be forgiven for not having all the answers that I, and others, wanted at the time. That was over four months ago, however, and we still have no answers.
	What was disappointing about the Minister's speech was that, although she was critical of our proposal for a statutory approach, she was not able to identify the right way forward. Four months since that recording, when she was exposed to a deceit which she recognised and called a disgrace, we have seen nothing. If our proposal is too broad, and the Minister would rather limit Government action to pigmeat, that is a start, but let her take the proposal to the Commission. If 10 per cent. is too low a threshold for the proportion of ingredients, let the Government ramp it up to 20 or 30 per cent., but let them take it to the Commission. The point is that they have not done that.
	It is more than 10 years since the present Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), proclaimed, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that he had secured a voluntary agreement. He then talked out my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Although the Minister may have been in office in this Department for only a few months, for most of the past 12 years she has been a member of this Government. She cannot deny the Government's failure to address the issue for all that time.
	I want also to touch on some of the comments made by Members. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made a tremendously thoughtful speech, much of which I agree and sympathise with. I do not go all the way with him, however. He is a strong supporter of the organic movement, and it has a great part to play, but what he did not do—I would welcome a debate on this on another occasion—is address the fundamental dilemma that organic production has lower yields than conventional systems. If we are worried about food security and total production, that crucial dilemma must be dealt with.
	The hon. Gentleman also rightly referred to the abuse of words such as "fresh", "natural" and "pure". I am reminded of the recent Cardhu whisky case involving the difference between pure malt and single malt whisky, which eventually had to be resolved by legislation. There is clearly room for a lot more work there.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), both former promoters of similar legislation, made clear their understandably intense anger that the Government have not taken the matter forward. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk referred to the operation of the market and the need for the Government to push much harder in Europe.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) put forward a number of other issues, including tuberculosis, regulations and the cider tax, all of which need to be addressed. The TB issue was also referred to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson).
	Finally, my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) again emphasised the importance of local food and proper labelling, and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury made a pertinent comment about the export of cruel and lower standards to other countries if we operate ahead of others.
	Much has also been said about the issue of food security, and I hope the Minister who responds to the debate will answer some fundamental questions. The Secretary of State has been in post for more than one and a half years, yet all that seems to have changed is the rhetoric. His predecessor, the current Foreign Secretary—presumably until the present Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gets promoted, as seems to be the fashion in this Government—said in this House that food security was achieved by importing from many different countries. That was met with laughter and astonishment. We have had new rhetoric from the current Secretary of State, at the Oxford farming conference and last week before the National Farmers Union, that he wants to increase domestic production—no ifs, no buts. That is what he said.
	What are we to make, however, of DEFRA's website? We find pages dedicated to further reform of the common agricultural policy and to the document published in December 2005, "A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy", which was signed off by the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, and the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, now the Minister for Housing. That document is still published on DEFRA's website as the Government's vision for the CAP, and I quote, as I have before in debates in this House, the following statement:
	"domestic production is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for food security."
	Nobody pretends it is sufficient, but not necessary? Who do we believe: the Secretary of State with his new rhetoric or the Prime Minister himself?
	The Secretary of State's argument is to increase domestic production, no ifs, no buts, as long as the consumer wants it and it is environmentally sustainable. We support that. Who in their right mind would not support it? However, the Secretary of State left out in his proclamations of the last couple of weeks a number of other ifs and buts: "If you can comply with all the regulatory burden; if you can afford the extra storage to comply within the nitrate vulnerable zone regulations; if you can find time to do any farming after you have filled in all the Government forms." There are also a few more buts: "But the Government won't help you to combat TB; but they will charge you for disease control; but you still won't get your money when other countries do; but we will demand repayment if we overpay you—you'll pay up at once; but we won't demand British standards for public-procured food; but you will have to face increased integrated pollution prevention and control or IPPC, you will have to face electronic identification or EID, and you will have to face the availability of pesticides."
	There are a lot more buts that the Secretary of State left out, one of which is that we are at the butt end of this Government. They are content to remain in office until the very last moment, but we have learned from this debate that they are prepared to let farmers and consumers suffer while they twiddle their thumbs. The final but is that it is time for the Government to butt out.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the House for a generally balanced and interesting debate. Once again, I welcome the Opposition spokesmen—with one exception—to their new roles. Comment was made that this Front-Bench team was charming. I was going to begin my remarks by saying that the Opposition Front Benchers were charming and a little disarming, although those last comments were not.
	The debate has covered an issue that is of concern not only to all involved in the food sector, but to consumers in this country. Rightly, food and how it is produced has never been so high on the public agenda. Why is that? It is because the food market is changing rapidly, and people want and rightly demand healthy, nutritious products produced with a low environmental impact, from sustainable sources and with high standards of animal welfare, clear provenance and environmentally sound distribution. Many of those factors have been raised in this debate. We must also be cognisant of the fact that people also want their food to be convenient and good value. That is a challenge, but for those across the supply chain it is also a unique opportunity. We want to support producers, farmers and everyone in the supply chain to take advantage of this opportunity. That is the only way in which we will build a healthy, thriving agricultural sector.
	Opposition Members provided some interesting examples of where they feel that labelling has gone wrong—indeed, there was almost product placement of Marks and Sparks, Birds Eye, and the Co-op and the farmers market in Arundel, which I know we shall all be visiting—but I think that we all agree on the main principle: that we should do all that we can to help British consumers make an informed choice about what they buy and to buy British and support British farmers by choice.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made a speech that was very thoughtful in places, but he seemed to be urging us to go back to the sixties a bit, with price fixing at farm gates. His contribution was well-meaning and thoughtful, but consumers will take note and will probably panic at the idea of a Lib Dem Minister pricing the pork off the dinner table in times of economic downturn. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who I believe is in his place, in an intervention urged him to think again, but in another re-run of decades ago suggested that the solution was getting out of Europe. Both approaches—turning our back on Europe or turning our back on the hard-pressed consumer—are a retreat from reality.
	The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) suggested that when Labour came to power we not only had an antipathy towards rural areas, but we actually despised them. That would come as a surprise to the chair of my local farmers union. In 1997—I know that the hon. Gentleman arrived in this place two years later—there were 120 Labour MPs representing rural seats, all advocating hard on behalf of their constituents. He also urged us to show leadership. Is that leadership to get out of Europe or into isolation in Europe? Which would be the better for farmers and which would be the better for consumers?
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), with whom I have regularly debated various issues in different roles, was very angry. I wondered what my right hon. Friend the Minister had done to wind him up, because he is not normally so angry. We were urged to show determination, and I agree that we need to show determination, as this is a real issue. The hon. Gentleman also spoke up for Hereford beef, which is indeed world class. Together with Welsh Black beef and others, it is recognised for its quality and how it is produced.
	The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) raised valid concerns about the pig industry. He made some thoughtful comments, but in an apparent Freudian slip he said that it has not had the "protection". He instantly corrected himself, saying that that was not the right word, and he was right. I hope that the House agrees that the last thing that would be in the interests of our farmers, producers, retailers and consumers would be to withdraw into some sort of protectionist mentality. The hon. Gentleman insisted that we will not argue the case with the Commissioner— [ Interruption. ] We will argue the case with the Commissioner, but let us do so on a case in which we have a scintilla of possibility of success, as opposed to the wording of the Conservative motion.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is the chair of the all-party cheese group. I would have dearly loved to have recommended to him my father-in-law's pecorino and ricotta, which were lovingly made from sheep's milk on a farm nestling in the foothills of the Brecon Beacons, but it is unfortunately now out of production, and I do not have to declare an interest. The hon. Gentleman made some thoughtful and useful comments on nutritional information that enriched the debate that we have had this evening.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) paid tribute to the lamb from his constituency. He knows that Welsh lamb as a brand—like Hereford and others—has succeeded in overcoming many obstacles by clearly identifying its origin as a mark of quality and integrity. That is why people search it out. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) spoke with passion about mandatory labelling, but the Opposition's proposal is unworkable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) rightly reminded the House of the importance of food security, which can often get lost in technical debate, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), in an intelligent and cogent analysis of the issue from the common-sense perspective of the consumer. His speech was wide ranging: he managed to combine the car industry and the Cumberland sausage—I hesitate to say it, but they are two good examples of British bangers.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South argued for a mandatory system to counter the exploitation of labelling and the consumer. There are several ways to do that. We can do it through working with the EU, as we are doing. We can do it by working with producers and the food chain in the UK, as we are doing. We can also explore what else can be done on mandating, but not as in the proposal in the Opposition motion, which would be bound to fail. The question for the Opposition is whether they want us to ignore the ways in which we can make progress now—in Europe and with British retailers and farmers. The problem is that sitting here as legislators, they see legislation and regulation as the only answer. It is the classic issue of a workman who has only a hammer in his toolbox, so everything looks like a nail. We need to use all the tools at our disposal.
	As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has made clear, we need to help people to buy British if they wish and if they choose. For the past 10 years, the Government have been at the forefront of helping consumers to make informed choices. We have established the Food Standards Agency, we have brought into being the traffic light system and we have set out tough guidelines on country of origin labelling—

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 Question agreed to.
	 The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(1)).
	 Resolved,
	That this House considers that British consumers should have the information that they need in order to make the choices they want when they buy their food; notes that the European Commission has rejected a recent proposal from the Irish Government for national mandatory country of origin labelling for meat and meat products; believes that clear and unambiguous labelling stating the country of origin of the major ingredients for meat and meat products would level the playing field for British farmers and enable British consumers to show a preference for food which is produced to high standards of animal welfare, health and safety and environmental protection; agrees that where supermarkets and retailers comply with the Food Standards Agency's guidance on country of origin labelling that this is to the benefit of their consumers; and further believes that the best way to back British consumers and British producers is to support the Government's calls for tougher and clearer country of origin labelling across Europe.

Graham Stuart: On behalf of the residents of both sides of the River Humber, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this debate to take place tonight. The Humber bridge tolls affect constituents across the whole of east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire.
	I shall begin by explaining a little of the bridge's history before I move on to its current financial predicament and the impact on local people. In the short term, the Humber bridge board has proposed an increase in the existing toll—already the most expensive toll in the country—of 20p per crossing. Having discussed that, I shall move on to the growing calls from all areas of the local community and all political parties to scrap the debt currently owed on the bridge; it now stands at a remarkable £334 million or more.
	Plans for the bridge were originally drawn up in the 1930s, but work on it did not begin until 1972. I am glad to see so many Members from the other side of the bridge in the Chamber tonight. They will remember the infamous Kingston upon Hull, North by-election; it is good to see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) in her seat today. During that 1966 by-election, in a desperate attempt to save an ailing Labour Government—there may be echoes today—Barbara Castle sanctioned the building of the bridge. At the time, it was estimated that the bridge would cost £28 million to build. However, as a result of Government procurement and mismanagement, for which both sides of the House bear some responsibility, the figure trebled to more than £90 million.
	Over the years, in the hands of Governments of both parties, the debt grew in Government books, and it stood at £334.5 million as of April 2006. By 1992, the debt had grown to a whopping £439 million. It was recognised that the bridge board's financial situation was unsustainable and that action was needed. Without Government assistance, the debt would have risen to more than £650 million by 1997. As a result, the last Conservative Government passed the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act in February 1996. That allowed the Secretary of State to reorganise the bridge's finances and write off debts payable to the Government by the bridge board.
	Consequently, in 1998 a new loan agreement was signed with the Humber bridge board; £64 million of debt was written off and the rest was suspended and rescheduled. The interest owed on the bridge was reduced from about 12 per cent. to 7.75 per cent. with the aim that the debt would be paid off by 2032. Had the 1996 Act not been passed, the total interest charged would have come in at tens of millions of pounds a year, placing an unacceptable burden on local taxpayers. As it was, interest charges were reduced to £10 million, which was paid for from the surplus of income produced by the Humber bridge board.
	In 2007, the Department for Transport reduced the interest rate to 4.25 per cent. following the Humber bridge board's advice that it would simply be unable to service the debt if it remained at more than 7 per cent. It is my constituents, and those of colleagues on the Labour Benches—

Austin Mitchell: The abolition of the tolls clearly has all-party support. Is it not a fact that if the tolls were removed the stimulus to development and growth in the area would generate more taxes for the Treasury than it is currently getting through the tolls?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, puts his finger on the nub of the issue. I will come to those points later on, but I welcome his contribution.
	The only long-term sustainable solution to the problem is the removal or substantial reduction of the tolls. Next week's inquiry should be a starting point for a much broader inquiry into the whole issue of the bridge debt and the impact that the tolls are having on the local economy. The bridge cost just over £90 million when it was first built, and in the years since more than £300 million has been paid in tolls, yet we are meant to accept that in the Government's book the board should still owe £330 million. That makes no sense. It is a burden imposed on the local economy, and it makes a mockery of the whole purpose of putting the bridge up in the first place, which was not just to help the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North's predecessor to get elected but to help the economy of the area.
	The Humber bridge board makes two debt repayments to the Exchequer every year. On 31 March 2009, the interest payment alone will be more than £7 million. More than 80 per cent. of the money made from the Humber bridge toll goes towards the interest on the debt. As a result, the total debt outstanding on the bridge has been reduced by just £26 million in the 11 years between 1998 and 2009. This situation cannot continue. The Humber area is the only city region in the country divided by a toll crossing with charges levied at such a rate. The Government have focused on city regions as being the most sensible economic units within which to develop Government policy. To have this bridge dividing our city region rather than bringing it together is madness, as I am sure that the Minister will recognise when he responds.
	It has to be said that the Humber area suffers from relatively low incomes and high levels of unemployment. To investigate the economic impact of the tolls, the four local authorities in the region—East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston upon Hull, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire—commissioned a report into their impact on businesses and jobs. Many people have said to me, "What is going to be different today when MPs from around the area make the case to the Minister?" I think that that report, entitled "Humber Bridge Tolls Impact Assessment", makes a great deal of difference. It was published late last year by Colin Buchanan Consultancy—the consultants who developed the methodology that was used to look at the economic impact of Crossrail. The methodology that they used in their report has been accepted by the Department of Transport, so it is not to be lightly dismissed.
	The report concluded that the abolition of or a marked reduction in the toll would improve the region's productivity, lead to greater employment opportunities, facilitate better networking between business, and increase local competition. Moreover, the bridge allows movement of employees, goods, knowledge and information, providing a deeper pool of resources from which the city region can draw.
	The report showed that with the abolition of the tolls, the total economy would benefit to the tune of £1.1 billion over the next 25 years. Even reducing the toll to £1 would produce a benefit of £580 million over the same period. The study further showed that the benefits of abolishing the tolls would be felt on both sides of the Humber. Hull would see a 3 per cent. increase in retail spend, adding an extra £45 million to the city economy, while the south bank would benefit from an increased labour catchment area making industrial development there much more appealing.
	At the moment, as the 2001 census showed, those living on the north bank of the Humber are overwhelmingly choosing to work in either Hull, the East Riding or, in many cases, in the city of York. They are not keen on travelling across the bridge twice a day to work in Grimsby or Cleethorpes, which is depriving the south bank of a huge labour resource. Moreover, in the current recession, unemployment is expected to increase markedly. The report makes it clear that for a significant number of unemployed people, the toll payments, rather than the time or distance, involved in commuting across the Humber are a barrier to seeking work across the Humber, and toll reduction could increase their scope for job search and job opportunities. What more could a Minister in this Government, at this time, in this current economic crisis, want to hear than such unequivocal, categorical advice on how to boost the local economy of that area?
	The caravan industry—a key local employer—has been badly hit, and thousands of jobs have been lost in East Yorkshire, not to mention North Lincolnshire, in recent months. Restricting the number of jobs that people can apply for, which the bridge toll essentially does, is not the best way to get them back into work. Business opportunities are also severely limited by the tolls. Businesses competing for contacts across the bridge find that they are sometimes unable to compete because of the cost of tolls and the exchange of ideas and networking are also severely limited.
	There is a real desire on both sides of the Humber to take this issue forward. More than 10,000 people recently signed a petition organised by the  Hull Daily Mail and  Scunthorpe Telegraph calling for the tolls to be axed or reduced to £1 for cars. More than 81,000 people signed a similar petition on the No. 10 website. When tens of thousands of people take the time to use a facility provided through the Prime Minister's office at No. 10, Ministers need to listen. There is no point in having these channels of communication if the Government are not prepared to listen to the voice of the people concerned.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is on to the interesting and important point that Ministers should listen. Is he aware that on a previous occasion where we were discussing local transport, in response to an intervention from me on this issue, the Minister agreed to meet an all-party delegation on the subject after the local inquiry had taken place? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister reaffirms his intention to meet an all-party delegation at the appropriate time to discuss the matter in further detail?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will be aware that in the 1980s, when the bridge board's staff were involved in industrial action and the toll was suspended, there was a huge increase in the number of people crossing the bridge. I ask the Minister to take that on board. We are confident that a new toll holiday would achieve the same effect. Irrespective of what happens at the public inquiry next week, I urge the Minister to consider that proposal carefully.
	The Government cannot have it both ways. On one hand, they place tremendous emphasis on city regions and their ability to further economic growth, and indeed they have said that they will do "whatever it takes"—I think that that is the right phrase, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—to help this country fight the recession. They should not on the other hand continue to restrict economic growth in our city region by continuing to profit from the bridge debt.
	I call upon the Government to give two commitments. First, I ask them to commit to working with the Humber bridge board to agree a toll holiday on the bridge, reducing the toll to £1 as I have outlined. The debt is fairly notional, but if money has to be found from general funds to allow that, what better money than that which has been set aside to help fight the recession can be used to see whether the idea works and put it to the test?

Paul Clark: At the outset, I congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) on securing this debate on an important issue. I ought also to take this opportunity to congratulate Members of all parties on their hard work, including the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and those who are sitting behind me—my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I congratulate them on the work that they have been doing on this matter, which is dear to their hearts, on behalf of their constituents.
	I shall set out a brief history of the development of the bridge, which is an important link between parts of the city region. Maybe it can be seen as bringing it together rather than dividing it. The Humber bridge was promoted as a local road by the local authorities of Humberside. Approval for the construction of the suspension bridge was given by the then Transport Minister, Barbara Castle, although it was not until 1973 that work finally began. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that the running of the bridge is undertaken by its board, which is made up of the local authorities that promoted the project—Hull city council, East Riding of Yorkshire council, North Lincolnshire council and Lincolnshire county council. The board is made of up 22 members from those authorities. It financed the construction through loans from the Secretary of State for Transport and the Public Works Loans Board.
	As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, the bridge took longer and cost more to build than was expected. However, the amount of traffic was lower than forecast because the expected population growth on the south side of the Humber never materialised. The original cost was some £28 million, increasing to £98 million throughout the construction period, with price inflation caused especially by the ground conditions that were encountered. The Humber bridge board charges tolls to cover that debt.
	By the time the bridge was open to traffic in 1981, loans were charged at a rate of 11.62 per cent. compared with the Bank of England rate of some 15 per cent.; many of us remember those awful times. Every year since opening, the bridge has made an operating profit. However, initially, that was not sufficient to cover the loan charges.
	As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the Government have done more to assist with the finances of the Humber bridge. The debt was restructured in 1998, when a reduced interest rate of 7.75 per cent. was set, with interest suspended on part of the total debt. The Humber bridge debt, which then amounted to £421 million—£359 million of which was owed to the Secretary of State, and £62 million to the Public Works Loan Board—was restructured. Indeed, we wrote off the £62 million that was owed to the Public Works Loan Board, and we suspended interest payments on £240 million of the debt that was owed to the Secretary of State. We also reduced the interest rate on the active part of the debt. The suspended debt was added back, beginning in the next financial year, in annual amounts, starting at £11 million and rising by 4 per cent. per annum to reintegrate it all. Those arrangements were set out in the 1998 loan agreement and the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996.
	In 2007, we again revised the interest rate on the debt to reflect more closely the rates that prevailed then, and to allow the Humber bridge board to repay the debt in the agreed loan period—until 2038—without recourse to levying a precept on taxpayers. Such recourse would mean that, ultimately, the taxpayers of Humberside would have to pay the debt, as set out in legislation. The interest rate was reduced to 4.25 per cent. until 2011, when the matter will be reviewed.
	The money saved through lower interest and the repackaging that we introduced in the latest development in 2007 is available to the Humber bridge board to repay capital and establish a maintenance fund. Under the remit of the agreement, the board is expected to manage the financial position until 2011, without recourse to the Department for Transport. That clearly sets out the steps that the Government have taken and the listening that we have done about the issues that must be faced. We have done that in dialogue with the Humber bridge board and through listening to hon. Members who have made representations about the financial position.
	The Secretary of State's role in relation to the bridge is restricted to approving or rejecting the proposed revision of tolls by the bridge board. As hon. Members know, there is an ongoing application to revise the tolls. That includes increasing toll charges from £2.70 to £2.90 for cars, from £4.90 to £5.30 for goods vehicles under 7.5 tonnes, and from £10.90 to £11.90 for goods vehicles that exceed 7.5 tonnes.
	The application is to be considered at a public inquiry. After listening and taking on board the representations made through several channels, including the No. 10 website, calling on the Government to cancel the Humber bridge debt and reduce the tolls, a public inquiry will begin on 3 March at the Willerby Manor hotel in East Yorkshire. Let me put it on record that the location of the inquiry is a matter for the board, which has made its decision, not the Government. The hon. Gentleman's website suggests that the Government refused to hold a public inquiry on the south side of the river. He knows that it is not a matter for the Government.